Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: The Physics Behind the Spanish Blackout
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:16:54 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <1029eop$1936b$2@dont-email.me>
References: <m66c4kdc428f5va3f1lf1hok2d8r7n8027@4ax.com>
 <1026c1c$fci3$1@dont-email.me> <cnqd4khvpf8bc1m581lt2kquavofaqj6br@4ax.com>
 <1027bpv$mvq1$1@dont-email.me> <kapjhlx4on.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <1027e64$nfnr$2@dont-email.me> <krrjhlxbmu.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <1rdokas.pew8b1jlata8N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
 <1028e6l$11k90$5@dont-email.me> <1028me9$1323e$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 16:16:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="34645dec4590aa0ca78c0dbc763a6292";
	logging-data="1346763"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bS8y3y+bRc0JdaF8A8xXR5UHL04y7BcA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UdvwZtNdzxMAxExAyochAjiyaHw=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250610-6, 10/6/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1028me9$1323e$3@dont-email.me>

On 10/06/2025 5:21 pm, David Brown wrote:
> On 10/06/2025 07:01, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 10/06/2025 6:44 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-06-09 21:54, Don Y wrote:
> 
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, we're sticking with other technologies (fossil fuels -- coal 
>>>>> -- and
>>>>> nukes) despite obvious and yet to be solved problems INHERENT in their
>>>>> technology.  Adding "inertia" synthetically to a network is a 
>>>>> considerably
>>>>> more realistic goal than sorting out how to deal with nuclear waste or
>>>>> the consequences of burning carbon.
> 
> Technically and economically, dealing with nuclear waste is many orders 
> of magnitude easier than dealing with the consequences of burning 
> carbon.

Nuclear fission waste is mixture of isotopes. Some of them are very 
radioactive and decay fast, and keeping them safe until they've mostly 
decayed is technically demanding. The less radioactive isotopes are 
easier to handle, but some of them stay dangerously radioactive for 
upwards of 100,000 years, and keeping them safely isolated for that 
length of time is an as yet unsolved problem

> Politically, ignoring or denying the consequences of burning 
> carbon is many orders of magnitude easier than doing anything at all.

Until the climate gets warmer, sea levels rise, and tropical cyclones 
get more energetic. People are getting spooked by the changes they've 
seen over the last thirty years, and politicians are finding them harder 
to ignore.

>>>> Solar and wind can be made to impose a gigantic inertia with 
>>>> appropriate
>>>> electronics. You can fixate the output at 50Hz, locked no matter what.
>>>
>>> Only if the surplus energy is available to supply the necessary current.
>>
>> That's why you need pumped hydro storage and grid scale batteries.
> 
> It's the same as pretty much any other problem with hardware - add some 
> big capacitors, and it will all be much more stable.

Only if you do it right.

>> That's exactly why South Australia installed the first ever grid scale 
>> battery in November 2017, and half of it's capacity was immediately 
>> devoted to short term (within cycle) frequency control. They had a lot 
>> of solar cell generation, and their quick-start gas-turbine unit had 
>> failed to start when it was needed, so they went shopping for a better 
>> solution. Search for the Hornsdale Power Reserve.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
> 
> Grid storage is a major part of the way forward in electricity 
> distribution (the other component is high voltage DC lines).  But 
> lithium batteries like that one are no more than a stop-gap.  Lithium is 
> expensive, dangerous, a limited resource, and mining it is an 
> environmental disaster (albeit much more localised than the disaster of 
> burning carbon).  The main battery type for grid storage should be 
> sodium ion batteries.

Lithium isn't particularly rare. Stars have been making it for the past 
13 billion years. You don't have to wait for a supernova.  We haven't 
put as much effort into finding lithium rich ores as we have put into 
finding copper, gold and silver, which are all heavier than iron.

Mining is always an environmental disaster if you don't keep a sharp eye 
on the miners.

There are a variety of of opinions about what battery type would be best 
for grid storage. Vanadium flow batteries have their fans. In so far as 
lithium is dangerous, sodium is even more dangerous (and potassium is 
even worse). Cheapskates who cut corners can extract a disaster from the 
most innocuous materials.

Most of the "lithium is dangerous" propaganda comes from the fossil 
carbon extraction industry, who wants to keep on selling gasoline to be 
burnt in  internal combustion engines.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney